Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward, Neil J. Wilkof, and Merpel. Nicola Searle is currently on sabbatical. Read, post comments and participate! E-mail the Kats here

The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy

Monday, 22 December 2014

Katfriends and IP enthusiasts David Pellisé and Juan Carlos Quero (Pellisé Abogados, Barcelona) have recently been involved in some successful litigation in Spain which may not seem to exciting to those non-Spaniards who are unaware of how deeply entrenched are the national legal traditions of that country and how difficult it is to achieve a paradigm shift in the way IP is litigated (a case in point being the persistent reluctance of the Spanish courts to align themselves with the principle of EU-wide exhaustion of rights). This is what they write:

Modification of a Spanish
trade mark paradigm

The Spanish Supreme Court has recently issued decision 520/2014, which
overturns an element of traditional Spanish trade mark doctrine. This concerns
the balance between the ius utendi (that’s
the “right of using”) and the ius
prohibendi (that’s the “right of stopping others using”). In short, from
now on, when two registered Spanish trade marks coexist, the holder of the earlier
trade mark no longer has to seek the nullity or invalidity of the later trade
mark before seeking to forbid its use.

Traditional doctrine

Historically, Spanish doctrine has considered that the owner of a
registered Spanish trade mark had a right to use the trade mark, which didn’t yield
even to the ius prohibendi of an
earlier-registered Spanish trade mark. So, if the owner of an earlier registered mark
wanted to stop the use of the later registered mark, he would first have to seek
its invalidation (even though invalidity and infringement actions could be incorporated
within the same proceedings since 1986).

This traditional doctrine arose the Industrial Property Statute of 1929
(EPI) and continued to apply under the Spanish Trade Mark Act 1988 (as
evidenced by Spanish Supreme Court rulings 470/1994, of 23 May 1994, 169/1995
of 6 March 1995 and 717, of 7 July 2006). Indeed, it persisted under the
Spanish Trade Mark Act 2001 and we can find recent examples of its application
as recently as 24 July 2013 in the decision of the Spanish Supreme 489/2013.

A new leading case

The German company Denso Holding GmbH and its Spanish subsidiary Denso
Quimica brought infringement actions against their former partner and
distributor Productos Denso Pla Y Cia. The defendant raised as a defence its
ownership of a Spanish trade mark which had been registered after the date of
the plaintiffs’ international trade mark registrations. The plaintiffs did not seek to invalidate the
defendant’s trade mark because, according to Spanish Supreme Court case law,
the time limit for doing so action had already expired. Even though the
plaintiffs knew that it was extremely difficult to succeed in the infringement
action because of the existence of the traditional doctrine, they argued that
this doctrine had to be changed in order to accommodate the requirements of
Community Law.

The infringement action was dismissed because, both at first instance
and on appeal, the courts in Barcelona followed the traditional doctrine and,
since invalidity of the defendant’s trade mark had not been requested, the
action was bound to fail. The plaintiff then appealed further to the Spanish Supreme
Court, requested the modification of its traditional doctrine and supporting this
request with legal and social arguments.

Among the legal arguments, it was pointed out how this doctrine was
against the principle of unitary protection sought by the Directive 2008/95 to
approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, according to which the owner of the
later trade mark had no ius utendi
which could be alleged against the owner of a previous trade mark.

The bottom line

As mentioned, the Spanish Supreme Court has now changed its doctrine:
from now on, the owner of a prior registered Spanish trade mark can prohibit
the use of a later registered Spanish trade mark without a mandatory obligation
to request its invalidation. This decision opens a door to liability on the
part of the owner of the later registered Spanish trade mark which was until
now restricted.

David and Juan Carlos are of course happy to discuss the ramifications of this decision further with anyone who'd like to contact them.

The IPKat adds: readers who are familiar with Community trade mark law may recall the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C‑561/11Fédération Cynologique Internationale v Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza, a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n° 1 de Alicante y n° 1 de Marca Comunitaria [noted on the IPKat here]. This case established a similar principle, the court ruling that

Article 9(1) of Council Regulation ... 207/2009 ... on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right of the proprietor of a Community trade mark to prohibit all third parties from using, in the course of trade, signs identical with or similar to its trade mark extends to a third-party proprietor of a later registered Community trade mark, without the need for that latter mark to have been declared invalid beforehand.

However, the word ‘Directive’ does not appear in this decision, which is not specifically concerned with national trade mark law, so it is now a relief for earlier trade mark owners to know that, whether their mark is of the national or Community variety, they can exercise it in Spain against the owner of a later-registered mark.You can read the Spanish Supreme Court decision in the original Spanish here or download it here.

Does this position not render opposition and annulment proceedings redundant ?

Furthermore, this on the basis of the principle of coexistence of national trademarks and CTM, a holder of a prior CTM cannot institute infringement proceedings against a posterior valid national trademark without obtaining the annulment of the latter first.

IPKat Policies

This page summarises the IPKat policies on guest submissions and comments. If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation. To learn more about our guest submissions, comments and complaints policy and the procedure for lodging a complaint click here.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

Just click the magic box below and get this page translated into a bewildering selection of languages!